Started By
Message

re: One of the great points of contingency in military history took place 84 years ago today

Posted on 7/21/25 at 8:36 am to
Posted by SantaFe
Baton Rouge
Member since Apr 2019
7856 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 8:36 am to
hitler's Dad should have pulled out.
Posted by Gemini Jim
Member since Jul 2025
147 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 8:43 am to
quote:

Many people don't know about the rasputitsa, also known as the "mud times". During the spring and fall the Russian roads became unusable due to the mud. This, more than anything else, stopped the Germans. They resumed the offensive in early Dec when the roads froze over and became usable again.

The Germans were literally freezing to death. The Russian winter stopped them.

How the Russian Winter Froze Hitler’s Nazi Empire in Its Tracks
Posted by Keltic Tiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2006
22034 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 8:52 am to
I agree, Stalin losing Moscow mite have been a death blow, but he had ordered all weapons manufacturing & massive numbers of untrained troops to safety behind the Urals & at some point both would still have been a factor, long term in the war.
Posted by UncleLogger
Freetown
Member since Jan 2008
3278 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:06 am to
He went south for the Soviet oil fields around Baku.
Posted by The Cow Goes Moo Moo
Bucktown
Member since Nov 2012
4324 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:10 am to
And I just started HH Ghosts of the Ostfront series on my way to work this morning

Cool story, I know
Posted by tigerpimpbot
Chairman of the Pool Board
Member since Nov 2011
69095 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:19 am to
quote:

Germany was defeated before they launched Operation Barbarossa because they couldn’t knock Britain out of the war.


Hermann Goering TYFYS
Posted by Rabby
Member since Mar 2021
1753 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:25 am to
quote:

Russia used AMERICAN made trucks, over 400,000 of them. 4X the number used by the US and UK in Europe.
Mostly Studebakers because they ran well on the low octane Russian fuel.
Posted by DakIsNoLB
Member since Sep 2015
1234 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:26 am to
quote:

Germany had to change out rail to the different gauge used in Russia, then it used horses for transport the final miles to the front. Russia used AMERICAN made trucks, over 400,000 of them. 4X the number used by the US and UK in Europe.


Rail was one big issue to logistics. the other was that Germany didn't have enough of their own transport trucks, so they pressed into service the many vehicles they acquired conquering Western Europe. Problem was, none of these vehicles were made for rough terrain. Lots of breakdowns even before the Russian mud.

American made trucks didn't get to Russia in numbers until 1943.
Posted by DakIsNoLB
Member since Sep 2015
1234 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:30 am to
quote:

He went south for the Soviet oil fields around Baku.



That was after the Barbarossa.
Posted by CharlesUFarley
Daphne, AL
Member since Jan 2022
1110 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:36 am to
quote:

Russia used AMERICAN made trucks, over 400,000 of them. 4X the number used by the US and UK in Europe.


None of which they had during the 1941 Operation Barbarosa or the 1942 Battle for Stalingrad.

We were transitioning our industrial base to military manufacturing then.
Posted by Rip Torn
Member since Mar 2020
6035 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 9:42 am to
You misspelled the Russians gave Napoleon Moscow as a trap
Posted by Mahootney
Lovin' My German Footprint
Member since Sep 2008
12156 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:12 am to
The Germans lost the Battle of Britain, and they had no hope of breaking the British Navy.
British radar and detection ensured they always knew when air attacks were coming and had aircraft in the air at the attack and airfields repaired within hours.
So, they were never going to finish off Britain.

Even if they had taken moscow, encircled stalingrad, and secured the oil fields in the caucuses, they would not have been able to outlast the russians.
Firstly, Russia was willing to send as many men as necessary.
Secondly, the allies were sending enormous quantities of materials to russia.

Germany could have reached the caucuses, but they had no way to refine and transport the oil back to germany.
They had no way to stop material reinforcement from America to UK and USSR..
Not to mention, the industrial production difference in 1943 and 1944 was staggering and only growing worse for Germany.
- For example:
- USA and Russia made 65k tanks in 1943, Germany made 11k. In 1944, that gap was still 50k to 18k. In 45, 30k to 5k.
An extra 30k per year of reliable tank machinery.

- US, GB, and USSR made 145k airplanes in 1943. Germany made 40k. In 1944, it was 160k to 62k.
An extra 100k planes per year with well-trained pilots to fly them ensured Germany was just delaying the inevitable.

This doesn't include naval production for shipping, support vehicles, food production, oil production, high-quality training, and many other essentials.


Their best plan was to call it quits when they were ahead and try to hold onto their territory and replenish. Same for Japan. Don't let US get involved.

However, that was not aligned with the German vision of eliminating and/or ruling the inferior slavic and jewish people.
Posted by DakIsNoLB
Member since Sep 2015
1234 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:17 am to
quote:

You misspelled the Russians gave Napoleon Moscow as a trap


Huge miscalculation. He thought there was no way they'd let Moscow go without negotiating an end to the conflict. Napoleon had forced several treaties by winning a decisive battle or taking a strategic location. The Russians, and namely Kutuzov, were committed and did not care. Kutuzov knew he could weather the logistics close to home far better than Napoleon.

Stalin had a similar advantage, though modern warfare meant space and time weren't as great of an advantage as before.

Posted by TigerHornII
Member since Feb 2021
1161 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:26 am to
quote:

None of which they had during the 1941 Operation Barbarosa or the 1942 Battle for Stalingrad.

We were transitioning our industrial base to military manufacturing then.


Not exactly. The Brits were sending them plenty of American gear by the time of Moscow.
Posted by TigerHornII
Member since Feb 2021
1161 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:29 am to
quote:

I agree, Stalin losing Moscow mite have been a death blow, but he had ordered all weapons manufacturing & massive numbers of untrained troops to safety behind the Urals & at some point both would still have been a factor, long term in the war.


Lend-Lease was still the difference. Most Soviet tanks, including the T-34, used aluminum-intensive engines. After late '41, some 80% of that aluminum came from the US for the duration of the war. The Germans wrecked the aluminum mining and refining capabilities in the Ukraine.
Posted by TigerHornII
Member since Feb 2021
1161 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:37 am to
quote:

The Germans lost the Battle of Britain, and they had no hope of breaking the British Navy.
British radar and detection ensured they always knew when air attacks were coming and had aircraft in the air at the attack and airfields repaired within hours.
So, they were never going to finish off Britain.



Mostly on point, but Fighter Command was on the brink of collapse when the Germans stopped attacking airfields. Most histories of the battle agree that just a few more weeks, or even a few more raids, would have done it. With air superiority, the Royal Navy could not defend the Channel. At that time, the Brits had something like 1 anti-tank gun, mostly obsolete ones at that, for every 20 miles of shoreline, and only 20 rounds of ammo apiece for them. The army was shattered after Dunkirk, where most of their weapons were abandoned.

In hindsight, the outcome all looks like a foregone conclusion. On the ground that the time, Churchill himself carried a Bren light machine gun in his car's trunk, and knew how to use both it and a rifle with a bayonet. He had instructed his family members not to be taken alive at all costs, and they all went armed, even his teen daughters.
Posted by Ruston Trombone
Member since Jun 2025
530 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 10:58 am to
quote:

German should have encircled Stalingrad and kept rolling instead of getting bogged down.


They weren’t as smart as our generals. That’s exactly the approach we took with the Japanese islands
Posted by Mahootney
Lovin' My German Footprint
Member since Sep 2008
12156 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 11:22 am to
quote:

Mostly on point, but Fighter Command was on the brink of collapse when the Germans stopped attacking airfields. Most histories of the battle agree that just a few more weeks, or even a few more raids, would have done it. With air superiority, the Royal Navy could not defend the Channel. At that time, the Brits had something like 1 anti-tank gun, mostly obsolete ones at that, for every 20 miles of shoreline, and only 20 rounds of ammo apiece for them. The army was shattered after Dunkirk, where most of their weapons were abandoned.
Fair.
I seriously doubt the Germans could have pulled off a reverse Normandy.
They had no way of getting across the channel, and even if they wanted to, they didn't have the transport capacity to pull it off.
Maybe force a peace treaty with England.
Posted by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
45582 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 11:30 am to
quote:

With Operation Barbarossa in full swing, Army Group North is well on its way to besieging Leningrad while Army Group Center is speeding toward Moscow after capturing the city of Smolensk. Army Group South, however, is meeting stiff resistance in Ukraine as this is where the Red Army has concentrated the bulk of its forces. In a move that met with thunderous protest from his generals, Hitler ordered Army Group Center to halt its drive on Moscow and divert its panzer divisions to Army Group South to assist in the capture of Kiev.


Probably the biggest mistake Hitler ever made. If Army Group Center would have continued its drive on Moscow then they would have arrived and likely captured the city. Not only would the Germans arrived before winter set in but they would have deprived the Soviets of 6 weeks worth of time that they were using to fortify Moscow. Also they would have arrived before the Soviets were able to bring in reinforcements from west of the Urals. Those reinforcements barely arrived in time as it was but they would have been too late if Hitler hadn’t stopped to capture Kyiv. Also the Soviets would not have had time to disassemble the tank factory in Kharkiv and transport it over the Urals where it was vital in manufacturing enough tanks to beat the Germans later in the war.
Posted by Penrod
Member since Jan 2011
55609 posts
Posted on 7/21/25 at 11:34 am to
quote:

Great Britain was wobbling when the USA joiined the fight. Had Hitler asked Japan to hold off until they fell

GBR wasn’t falling no matter how long he waited. The only way to make them fall was to cross that channel, but Hitler lost The Battle of Britain to the RAF, and there was no way he could cross the Channel.
This post was edited on 7/21/25 at 11:35 am
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram